With the start of a new year, we thought it would be a good time to explore the current state of raw processing with a head-to-head comparison of the leading cross-platform raw image converters: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4, Phase One's Capture One Pro 7 and DxO Optics Pro 8. Of course, today's raw converters offer much more than just demosaicing algorithms. Issues such as processing speed, imaging workflow and output options rank right up there with image quality for amateur and professional photographers alike. And as software gets more and more clever about image analysis, the ability to start with a pleasing image at default settings is enticing as well.

So we loaded our test computer with hundreds of raw files from a variety of cameras and put each application through its paces to find out which one offers the best combination of performance, features and of course, image quality.

The minimum hardware requirements of each application are fairly similar, with all three available for both Mac and Windows operating systems. Each application benefits from multi-core processors, plenty of empty hard drive space and lots of available memory. I'd suggest at least 8 gigabytes of RAM on any system, particularly if you like to have multiple programs running at once.

The contenders

Lightroom 4's modular approach is tailored to a comprehensive capture to output workflow.

Adobe's raw converter and image management software offers tight integration with the company's industry-standard editing software, Photoshop CS. Among the new features in the latest version of Lightroom are geo-tagging, soft-proofing and the ability to create print-ready books. You can read about these and other features in our Lightroom 4 review. For a list of currently supported cameras, visit Adobe's Camera Raw page. Adobe also has Lightroom 4 online training videos available.

Phase One's raw converter has long been popular with fashion and studio photographers due to its robust support for tethered shooting. New to version 7 is a catalog-based asset management option and live view during tethered shooting for select DSLRs. The latest dot release (7.0.2) introduces support for Fujifilm's X-Trans sensor cameras and you can see how it handles the X-Pro1's raw files in our recent test. For a list of currently compatible cameras, visit Phase One's support page. Phase One provides a video tutorial series for Capture One Pro 7 on their YouTube channel.

DxO Optics Pro 8 is best known for its extensive, automated corrections for lens flaws.

DxO Labs' raw converter is built around the company's well-regarded camera/lens correction modules. Long favored by many users in conjunction with external asset management apps, version 8 introduces selective tonal edits and print capability. You can read about these features in our DxO Optics Pro 8: What's New article. For a list of currently compatible cameras, visit DxO labs' support page. DxO Labs also hosts a library of DxO Optics Pro 8 tutorials on their web site.

In this raw converter showdown we'll compare these three programs in the following categories:

Did I miss something? Where is the analysis of image quality under image quality? I mean slightly different colors or contrast can be adjusted, but which of these programs can produce, for example, the best looking output from a high ISO RAW in terms of resolution and noise?

I agree; in my personal experience, DXO provides the best quality because of their Lens Modules feature. And the very versatile Noise Reduction tools. (Yes, Luminance NR is much too high at default in DXO for RAW photos at any ISO; easy to set a lower level.)

What conclusion did you want them to reach? Seems to me they already gave us the most reasonable conclusion possible: There is no clear winner, because each has different areas of strength and weakness, so logically you pick the one that fits your quality preference and the way you work.

You want to know what's really bad about some reviews? When they pick one single winner even though the results indicate that it doesn't make sense to single one out. What's next, picking a winner between New York or LA, or between your mom and your dad?

I think this article concentrates too much on how the "default" output looks like. The fact is, that (at least in LR) you can customize the default processing per camera, save it, and then use that setting as the default. I have also tried C1 and Dx0. With the cameras I have (Canon and Panasonic) I find that Dx0 creates mush where LR renders detail, so I'm sticking with LR for speed and for "compare" function

Which version of DXO are you using? I am fairly recent to DXO and used version 7 and now 8. The newer versions have Lens Modules for a lot more camera/lens combinations and I find that provides superb quality. If your camera/lens combinations do not have a Lens Module in the version you are using, then perhaps that is the reason for your disappointment with DXO.

I'm testing the latest, so that's not the reason. And the camera/lens combinations are in place. I've also noticed that while I can get less mushy results by reducing noise reduction, I get jagged edges with DxO

Availability and thoroughness of documentation and training materials is one area that I did not see covered in the review. Each of these products is difficult to master. I have used C1 for years and have always become frustrated because of the weakness or lack of detailed documentation. Each new release has changes that I frustrate myself trying to learn. DxO I purchased and was even more frustrated with its lack of documentation and training materials. Simple things like if you open a RAW file in another program first like LR or C1, the RAW file will not show up in the DxO browser -- this took me two weeks of slow emails with Dx0 to figure out. With LR you have books and tutorials from Adobe and third parties. So why do I use three products -- because not all cameras are supported or supported equally by each product. An example of this is the Fuji X-trans sensor.

Partial defishing is where DxO8 shines, with Canon full frames and the Canon 15mm f2.8 fisheye. LR4's tool is better than it was but still doesn't come close, sadly. In DxO untick the ratio box, and use a setting of 65-85, and WOW.

DxO's Smart Lighting is also really good, a realistic pseudo HDR that isn't easy to reproduce quickly. However I often find DxO is too bold with tricky images, things blow out or get ugly quickly; LR4 is far more subtle, gives more latitude and doesn't lose it. DxO's output never seems to look like on the screen; LR4 does, exactly.

In LR use Masking to get better high ISO results than in the article. I haven't tried C1.

I think this is a very important consideration, particularly for those using raw converters a image editing apps (instead of PS, or with highly diverse raw files so that batch isn't a good option). But I couldn't agree the real-time updates in LR4 are "smooth". Probably due to my slightly aged computer. But Picasa for instance is way smoother (I wouldn't consider it a serious raw converter but it does read raw files, and the few controls it has do work much more smoothly).Any difference in the "smoothness" between LR4 and C17?

The conclusions are a bit confounding. Why suggest equivalency when there are clear differences?

Of course each product has value and has its own strong points. But it doesn't take much effort to see that Capture 1 is pulling out amazing results that the others can't achieve. DXO is second, and LR is far behind. C1 is taking the exact same image and giving it better color, impact, and detail! This isn't surprising, as it aligns with other comparison reviews on the web.

LR has clear advantages in 3rd party support and list price, but let's not pretend its fundamental image processing abilities are equivalent!

Start at the begining, looking at the Default Color Rendering. LR is too washed out, and DXO is too dark. Then move to the skin tones - same thing. C1 gives you pleasing skin tones and colors without going one way or the other. Different cameras, same result. By rendering colors so well it gives more dimensionality to the images. Then look at the moire test, and tell me which one does a better job of rendering the singer's face, and the colors on his wrist band, and so on. Or the white fence toward the top of the crop from the Nikon D800E shot we've seen before. Only C1 delineates each of the horizontal lines, while maintaining a vivid white color. And if you keep looking you'll find more examples.

Your argument with respect to color, skin tones and detail rests on the false assumption that the default settings always give you the best result. In fact, they rarely do. DPR doesn't try to squeeze the very best out of each raw converter, they show you what you'll get with a minimal amount of work.

Thom Hogan's review of the NEX-7 illustrates my point perfecty. Scroll down a bit, and you find a comparison between three versions of the same image: a straight raw conversion (using ACR), an out-of-camera JPEG at default settings, and an "optimal" raw conversion. The difference is striking.

@Revenant - interesting review. How ironic that he chose a sports photo, a category where the choice is often between doing minimal processing and none (because JPEGs need to be sent in on a strict timeframe).

Nevertheless, he managed to also produce a washed-out, flat, non-dimensional photo - as if this is the price of using LR.

I amazes me how people can be so undiscriminating, becoming almost giddy as they jump at the chance to do "a lot of work" with their preferred product to produce a mediocre result.

Well, Capture NX 2 might be the only converter that YOU need. Two quick and obvious points... Some of us don't like Capture NX and some of us have more than one brand of camera so a RAW converter that supports Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony, etc. doesn't tie your workflow down to one brand.

I shoot Nikon and I think the raw color conversion is the best with Capture NX2, but the service, interface and updates are terrible (Nik software service is fast and courteous - I am only speaking about Nikon). Nikon makes it so easy to choose another converter.

But when you consider how much of the photographic and graphic arts community uses Macs, the number is huge! Sure, the average lay person buys a cheap Windows PC to surf the web and whatnot, thus making up the majority of the mass market. But when it comes to working photographers, I don't know anyone who is still on Windows. They've all gone Mac.

After being a lifelong Windows user, I switched to a Mac about a year ago. Just wish I had done it sooner. And I'm even happier now that I've tried Windows 8! Wow, what a big misfire for MS. I think even more people will be switching over to a Mac now that Windows 8 is out.

You're half right (at least).Mac's have a fairly trivial marketshare. They also have a fairly trivial marketshare in photo processing (ask Adobe at the next trade show).But given that it is just a datafile being processed by what I think is safe to assume are the same algorythims (on MAC and on PC) I doubt it made any difference in the outcome.

Geez. The OP is so 1990s. Apple's PC market share for 2012 is a little over 12 % and they are the number 3 PC retailer against all other brands. Also, Apple users tend to keep their machines in service longer, so they really represent a larger share of the user market than sales alone would indicate. But, as noted above, it makes no sigificant difference with respect to the raw algorithms, so what's your point OP? Are you just a MAC hater?

This was not bad but ... why on earth did you compare Lightroom and Capture One Pro at two different preview sizes? They BOTH support 2048 and 2880; what on earth would make you think that changing Lightroom's setting but not Capture One's setting wouldn't be biased?

That is just such an incredibly amateur mistake I really had to make myself continue reading because I was expecting a train wreck of uneven and biased comparisons.

Overall I think this came to the right conclusion but would have benefited from ar least one section where you do a "Best Case Scenario" comparison and take a really noisey, poorly exposed image and try to make it as best as possible in each program - that's what a lot of people really care about: how far can I take my shooting and get good results? How many more images will I be able to save? Journalists and sports photographers are probably more interested in that sort of thing.

While it is true that it is necessary to purchase the DxO Optics Pro Elite 8.x version (normally priced at $299 USD) in order to ensure compatibility with some relatively higher-priced dSLRs, DxO Optics Pro 8.x Standard version (normally priced at $169 USD) can suffice in all other cases - where it is, as a result, much more competitively priced in comparison with Lightroom 4.x's $149 USD costs.

OK. Thanks for that specific information. I guess that DxO Labs figures that "full-frame > full price".

Now that DxO Labs writes the essential core of the DxO Optical Correction Modules into the software application itself, rather than into the downloadable Modules themselves (ever since the release of Version 7.50) ...

... that means that roughly once per year (as in the case of Versions 8.x replacing Versions 7.x), if you want support for that newly added camera body or lens, the customer will be forced to purchase (Version 9.x, etc.) all over again.

You are somewhat right with the costs once new version is released. However, you do not pay full price but upgrade price which is substantially lower and further you can get it normally with 30% discount at the launch of the new version + several times a year.

List price is currently too high imho and it is also reflected by constant "sale" offer from DxO (-30% of the list price). I think they will have to drop the price a bit, especially the euro price.

DXO has a price deal right now, so it's a lot more affordable than that. But yes, I was suprised that when there was an update, from v. 7 to 8, owners of 7 still had to pay full price to get v. 8. Many software companies provide a big discount to the owner of a previous version when upgrading to a new version.

Concerning the price of the upgrade on DxO Optics Pro 8 : From version "x" (any version) to v8 the upgrade price was as low as 49USD (Standard edition) and 69 USD (Elite edition) during the launch.Those prices were only available for those who have purchased a previous version of course. (only online via the DxO customer account)

Concerning the price of the upgrade on DxO Optics Pro 8 :From version "x" (any version) to v8 the upgrade price was as low as 49USD (Standard edition) and 69 USD (Elite edition) during the launch.Those prices were only available for those who have purchased a previous version of course. (only online via the DxO customer account)

Best,Olivier >>

This is to inform DxO Labs that the statement in the first paragraph (above) is only partially accurate, and past-tense references of the second paragraph (above) are not accurate.

Since the Release of Version 8.0 on Oct 30, 2012, DxO Labs emails sent to members of the DxO Labs mailing-list show that there was no notification of any upgrade license availability whatsoever, until ...

The above statement relating to the availability of upgrade licenses for DxO Optics Pro could only be interpreted to be accurate if the word "special" is construed to have been intended to mean:

"possibly for certain time periods if and when DxO Labs may so choose" (with reference to the existence of an upgrade license price that is reduced in cost relative to the full license price in effect at any given time).

... as opposed to being construed to have been intended to mean:

"special" (with reference to the monetary cost of an upgrade license that is reduced in cost relative to the full license price in effect at any given time).

Thus, it appears that customers who have purchased licenses for previous release-versions of DxO Optics Pro are "special" to DxO Labs only if and when DxO Labs may at times so choose.

In the case of Panasonic, quality of rectilinear distortion correction appears to be notably higher than Panasonic correction meta-data utilized by applications such as Adobe LR/CR. Presumably characterized at more Focal Lengths.

"Lens Softness" correction default settings were changed (in V 6.x) to "V2" (Global=-0.5, Detail=50). Have found that these settings can overdo the sharpening effects. I typically use the original "V1" (Global=0.0, Detail=0).

I find the auto NR controls' settings can be (uniformly) reduced by factors of between 2 and 5.

Adobe LR/CR Color NR is more effective than DxO Chrominance NR. DxO Luminance NR (particularly at settings <= 10) appears to result in less detail-smearing than LR/CR Luminance NR. This article speculates as to why that may be so.

Thanks for your info... The settings you are referring to are for only the Panasonic or others as well? How about your experiences with Nikon... D800E or others? What settings do you like for landscapes?

My experience is primarily with the Panasonic DMC-LX3, and LGV 14-45mm and LGV 7-14mm lenses on a DMC-GH2 body. Sorry, no Nikon camera/lens experiences to recount.

It is possible that other manufacturers provide more rectilinear distortion correction image-file meta-data pertaining to more individual ranges of Focal Length. Don't know.

I have a feeling the the "Lens Softness" setting characteristics (may) well apply in general relative to different manufacturers.

The business about (in the case of Panasonic cameras) being able to reduce the NR-control settings below what is automatically selected (may) apply (to some extent) in general - as DxO Labs states that they characterize the image-noise spectrums for each camera model, and adjust the (internal) weighting of their NR controls accordingly.

Almost all of my applications are nature/landscape - and I am the type who (with any RAW processor) prefers to process each image individually using manual controls (Versions 6.x followed by Version 7.23 using the "DxO Lighting" interface).

It is not clear to me whether I would prefer the new ("just like Lightroom") tone-control-sliders. I don't tends to let much in the way of detailed subject-matter "clip" when shooting RAW.

Lightroom 4.x's "highlight recovery" is less than impressive for things other than wispy clouds - and it sounds like DxO's offering is not better.

Then there is the question of how well the "Lens Softness" corrections function in conjunction with "highlight recovery"?

"Auto-brain" controls are not for me. I like the use of the Gamma control (in "DxO Lighting" interface) combined with Exposure Compensation - though that (pre-versions 8.x) interface can tend to overdo the shadow-tones. That "DxO Lighting" interface is available as an option in versions 8.x.

I agree with your comments re DXO noise reduction. Noise Reduction is set too high (especially Luminance) and I get better quality with low ISO photos especially when setting NR at lower levels.

But I don't find the default sharpening (Lens Softness) to be much too high. Of course, photographers who prefer only minimal shapening before converting a RAW photo may find DXO too aggressive in this respect. (Adobe definitely is more gentle in this respect.)

Interesting article and the results show that the 800 pound gorilla is the 800 pound gorilla for a reason.

As usual, though, I am again faintly disappointed by the fact that all comparisons are done at "default settings" ... I am always left thinking "what self-respecting enthusiast is going to process images in an advanced tool and not touch one single slider or use one single preset?"

It would have been nice for this article to spend some time pushing each of the tools to see how difficult it is to get pleasing skin tones or great noise reduction with detail retention -- but instead, we get the tests that tell us how the tools work "with zero extra effort."

I get why the image comparator must use defaults, as misleading as it can be at times. But a full length article was the perfect place to explore each tool more deeply and show us if one could do things that the others could not. IMO of course, and YMMV.

A friend of mine is a wedding photographer. He and the second shooter spend 6 to 8 hours shooting .... thousands of RAW photos. (Not a high priced company so they cannot afford to spend 20 hours modifying RAW photos.) For them, it is important that default settings provide nice results. They use DXO for this reason.

True, but in Lightroom (for example) you can set the default settings for each slider very easy. If you constantly find yourself adding some saturation, you simply change the default saturation value to +10. You dont even have to access the preferences for that.

Not sure the following question makes sense: If you made a DNG file, say in LR2, and convert it using LR4, would you get the current LR4 quality as described in this review or, would the quality remains LR2?

When I upgraded from LR2 to 3 and now 4, and from Capture One Pro 3 to 7, I can say that my older RAW images got a real boost in quality. I was wondering if the same happens with DNG files.

BTW, the negative of this situation is that I am tempted to reprocess some older images... when I have the time.

Good question. Using the DNG format preserves the attributes of the raw file in its original state. So in the vase of software that reads DNG, like Lr you will indeed get any IQ advantages that Lr 4 has over Lr 2. You'll just need to update the file to the latest process version.

For people who say the software is too expensive; I agree with you...However it has been my experience that almost every new generation of software improves the results from my RAW files about as much as buying a new body would (better noise reduction, better dynamic range, and better color).

So if I have a choice of spending $1000 or $2000 on the latest Canikon body or upgrading Lightroom for a tenth of that price, I'm going with the software upgrade.

Been using Capture 1 Pro for a few years now and it is truly excellent. But since release 7, Phase One decided to only support 64-bit Windows. I use 32-bit Windows and will NOT upgrade for reasons to do with other software I must run. So now I'm picking an alternative. So far good old Bibble, aka Corel Aftershot Pro, is well ahead of the pack, with full support for the multi core AMD CPUs I use. Nothing else is even remotely in the same ballpark when it comes to speed. And the results are at least as good as Capture One Pro 6. Pity it wasn't tested as well..

@iru. Not entirely correct. You can run some 32bit programs on 64 bit but not all. If the program includes any 16bit code it will work on 32bit windows but not 64bit. Also not all 32bit software which runs on 64bit runs identically on 32bit. Then there is the hardware. Not all are well supported in 64bit. I have a lovely printer which I have to have a 32bit printserver to use.

I realize that Apple's Aperture is Macintosh only, but it should be included in this "shoot-out" because it is a viable contender for those who use Macs, both on an amateur as well as professional level. It may not be a "leading contender" but it does draw Mac users away from the so-called leaders. I chose Aperture over Lightroom after trying both of their free trials. I not only preferred Aperture for it's ease of use, but also it's cost - $79 vs Lightroom's $149. There are professional photographers who use Aperture for their entire workflow... please don't slight them (as well as us amateurs) in your reviews.Thank you for listening....

I agree... should have reviewed Aperture, but I will look through the article for at least a COMMENT about it. WHY wasn't it reviewed? Not enough users? Just not in the big-boy league? I am currently deciding which to use as a NEW Mac user. Seems like Ap would interact with other Mac programs better. And ya know, I spend so much money on the Mac products, Nikon products, AND the Ladies... I gotta look at the cheaper software!

I agree. Aperture should have been included. I also selected it over LR in trials and while the learning curve is steep, it is very powerful, integrates well with plug-ins and other OSX applications. The workflow is very natural and frees the creative spirit.

Agreed. In October 2012 Derrick Story, a professional photographer, did a podcast comparing Lr and Ap. Ap is his day to day app because of its organizational capabilities and he uses Lr occasionally for its image tools. You can listen via iTunes or probably on his site, http://thedigitalstory.com. He compares many other features too, some of the ones covered in this article as well as other considerations.

He also points out that at least for Lr and Ap the price shouldn't be a driver. You're spending $50 to $100 or less per year which is not much relative to the other costs of photography.

Title says "CROSS PLATFORM" - so I wonder why Aftershot Pro isn't included. I think that's the point of the article the software selected appeals to all computer users. It would have been good, however, to include at least a comparison test or two for each piece of software per platform, i.e. the import/export on both mac and PC and, say the batch editing. Just to compare if there is a difference in performance between platforms.

Good question. White balance is not 'baked into' a raw file, rather the WB settings chosen in the camera are reported as metadata. A raw converter's demosaicing process will influence the colors it renders for the image.

There is a lot more than the de-mosacing algorithm used that influences color rendering.

While image-file meta-data contains color matrix coefficients (not absolute color temperature and tint data), different RAW processors use differing color matrices applied to the de-mosaiced RGB image-data. The latitude taken is significant - and does not lend itself to consistency in absolute color temperature comparisons.

A given indicated color temperature in Lightroom 3.x yields an image (viewed on a sRGB-calibrated monitor) that is appears to the eyes as being approximately 500 Degrees Kelvin "cooler" than DxO Optics Pro Versions 6.x and 7.x.

In example, 5000 Degrees Kelvin in DxO (6.x and 7.x) looks about the same as 5500 Degrees Kelvin in Lightroom 3.x (for sunlit scenes).

In addition to the numerical value of WB Color Temperature, the amount of applied WB Tint alters chromaticity as well.

Most "As Shot" WB co-ordinates include both Temperature and Tint; these are not simple matters.

Couple things I didn't see when skiming through the article. First Capture One has the ability to output a number of different formats at the same time. Just choose them, click develop, and walk away. As far as I can see with Lightroom, you have to output each one separately which takes time.

Also the keystone correction tool in Capture One is brilliant and anyone doing architectural photography should look at it, even if they use a shift lens as you don't always get the camera level.

I saw none of these features noted. I use both C1 and LR4. But, in most cases, I do the RAW conversion in C1, using LR4 as mostly a keywording application and permanent storage catalog. I am still not comfortable with Capture One database.

A good analysis, though, and I am pleased to see that your mileage may vary. I am wondering about the selection of software. What was it based on?

Am I wrong, or are you actually drawing the same conclusions as the article?The review reports that LR has better colour skin rendition for Canon, has better highlight control than DxO and DxO has better Hi-ISO rendering....

I think it is how you use it as much as anything. I use DXO, LR, Photoshop and others... but mostly photoshop and DXO.I find that the colors, skin tones included, from DXO is very good. I also find the distortion correction on my lenses to be better with DXO then anything else. However I agree with the reviewer's comments based on the results in the test images.To me, the surprise was how good Capture 1 was not how bad LR was.

Not all of my conclusions are opposite to DPR, you are right. But DPR says "WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8 typically provides more pleasing saturation at its default settings." I disagree with this (for Canon RAWs), and not only when it comes to skin colors. LR renders much more pleasing colors with landscapes as well, for example - there is certain warmth to the image that DXO cannot reproduce regardless of the WB settings. Also, the tint and the luminosity of the blue skies is much more pleasing with LR (DXO tends to blow them); yellows become lemon type of yellows with DXO instead of slightly gold ones, etc.

DXO has several dozens of color rendering choices, and many Film Pack ones, as well. None of them can do what LR can. LR looks better sometimes with the Camera Standard profile - improves the reds.

Moderate ISO NR is better with LR but super high ISO NR is better with DXO.

I have been using DXO extensively after using primarily Adobe and I agree that Adobe has better highlight recovery. DXO does very well with shadow recovery however.

Although I shoot with the D800, and often the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, I find that the Lens Softness feature (sharpening and maximizing per pixel detail) provides a definite improvement. The Lens Modules (for specific camera/lens combinations) make DXO my favorite in terms of image quality (vs. Adobe and Capture NX 2).

Thanks! I enjoyed the read. I recently switched from DxO to C1 and I'm *veryveryveryvery* happy with my decision. That has mostly to do with the responsiveness of C1 (see Page 2, "Image Viewing" and Page 4, "Tool Adjustments") and the flexibility of the UI. I could configure the UI exactly the way I want it to be (two screens: 1 filled with tools, 1 with preview). I didn't go with Lightroom since it had severe color problems with neon highlights in my tests. Is that fixed now?

Thanks for the comparison. I haven't tried anything outside of Lightroom for years (except Photoshop and the Nik plugins). These other two products look great, but this kind of confirmed that LR4 still offers the most efficient workflow while providing robust RAW editing capability. I used to prefer Nikon Capture over Photoshop for RAW, but it was such a dog for workflow and speed. When I tried Lightroom 3 I never looked back. With any of these products you have to learn how to get the best out of them. I don't shoot Nikon much anymore anyway ;-)

We incorporate DxO Mark test data in our lens reviews and smartphone camera reviews. We publicized the announcement on our homepage and include their logo on the relevant review pages. So we're being as transparent as we reasonably can.

Just downloaded the trial version of DXO Optics Pro 8 and compared a couple of photographs that I processed in DXO and in Lightroom 4.3. I have a Nikon D600. As far as I can tell, I much prefer the results I get in Lightroom 4.3 to DXO. DXO isn't bad and maybe has some advantages that I can't see, but in my opinion and at this point I would take Lightroom 4.3 over DXO any day. Lightroom is easier to use, faster, more intuitive, and in my eyes produces better results. It felt a little painful working with DXO due to the constant lagging each time I applied a change to the RAW file. As if that wasn't enough, Lightroom is also much cheaper. Nearly half the price, especially if you're a student and can buy it at less than $100.00.

To see some of the advantages of DXO, try with pictures that need perspective or distorsion corrections (also for example UWA or fisheye). In my opinion DXO is not great as complete raw editor, not very responsive, but very good as specialized tool for the above mentioned features. Probably for this reason now they also offer ViewPoint, a simplified program just specialized in those corrections.

All very good raw processing software in their own rights. However there are at least six other programs that can offer matching quality conversions. The competition is great and will ensure we continue to see continued improvements.

I've compared Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro 7 for a month. This showdown exactly matches my conclusions. Lightroom is better at everything, except what counts the most for me - lighting, geometry, distortion, chromatic aberration and noise corrections. (though Lightroom has a small edge at correcting highlights). I didn't try Capture One because it was too expensive - I use DxO's standard version, which is much cheaper than Elite -, but it is quite impressive. All in all, three great programs, each one with their strengths and weaknesses. There was really no point in finding a winner here, as you should choose the one that best suits your needs rather than the Gold Award.

Interesting article, but, as others have mentioned, not including Aperture was a mistake. At the very, very least it warranted a significant mention in the intro and closing comments. I hope you can find the time to revisit this work with Aperture included in the not too distant future.

The "cross-platform only" stipulation is a fig leaf. This site has long stubbornly ignored Aperture. The editors have insisted that this reflects market share, but I refuse to believe that there are more DXO users than Aperture users.

Stu 5, yes, I did read the 'cross-platform comment', that is precisely the mistake I'm highlighting! The review would have been far more useful if it hadn't limited itself to being cross platform only.

At present I use ACDSee Pro for cataloguing and Raw development, and DXO Pro mainly for perspective and distortion corrections, where in my opinion is unbeatable.The review (showdown) is interesting, but I agree with other comments, it would be better to also have other alternatives, cross-platform and not, considering that in these days the sector is quite crowded.

Yes, that's correct. As stated in the text above it, the second column of images was used to illustrate the relative saturation levels possible with the converters without introducing excessive color noise.

Lightroom can make every image you take better. Those few $150 lenses that exist will only benefit those photos you take with them. I bought Lightroom (back when it was $300) before I made any investment in lenses beyond a standard zoom. It has been well worth it.

I can find it for $120 without even trying (from B and H). That's not a trivial amount, but it's low enough I can afford it, and I'm on disability. Compared to the cost of bodies, lenses, and computers, $120 is not very much for a powerful piece of software. And there are cheaper/free options, but none that offer as rich of a feature set.

That said, a less detailed comparison of the various alternatives would be a great companion to this article. Many of us do not need professional workflow and asset management features, and whether an application is available on platforms other than the one we use is unlikely to matter.

But thank you very much for all the work that went into this. I found it very interesting.

Any lens that retails for less than $150 is just an expensive body cap. I have thought that Lightroom is a bargain. I have a bag of lenses that sell for 10 times that but LR processes every image I photograph. Having used most of the convertors one time or another they all do a fine job with pluses and minuses. Pick one, learn it and go out and take pictures. I choose Adobe because I felt it is most likely to have long term stability and support as an Adobe product, and can leverage their corporate resources.

Nice article. I have DXO Optics Pro 8 and Lightroom 4, and use DXO mainly for individual edits, and Lightroom for large volume file edits. Very nice review agree with most of the comparison information. If i cant get something right in one, I can usually switch over and get the results I seek.

I did not tested much the sharpening, I was more concerned about the colors and low and high light recovering. But it seemed good with the medium amount of sharpness I gave. I am really liking this Photo Ninja for image quality and the interface. But this is me, anyway besides my experiences, I only read good opinions about the quality of this RAW converter.

Yes, Photo Ninja is easily the best raw convertor on the market today, although it is less rich in features than some of the others. Anyone who tries it will immediately see a difference from whatever he/she is currently using.

I agree in terms of pulling up details, noise reduction and illumination - there is no other player on the ground. However, other aspects not the best, eg. workflow, wb, preview speed. and, on osx is very irritating the handling of magic mouse (usually zoom in/out while simply moving the cursor across the frame)

Printing is (for me) the final step in the workflow process and the most important output option. I use LR primarily because it excels in this last step of the workflow. Did I miss comparisons of printing capabilities in this evaluation?

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

Latest buying guides

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.

At this year's CP+ show in Yokohama, we sat down with senior executives from several major manufacturers, including Canon. Topics of conversation included Canon's ambitions for high-end mirrorless cameras, and the importance of responding to the demands of the smartphone generation.

We were recently able to follow local frame builder Max Kullaway as he created one of his AirLandSea bikes. Here are our picks of the photos we got, as the project progressed from bare tubes all the way to rideable bicycle.

On paper, the Sony a7 III is a tempting option for photographers who've been considering a switch to full-frame mirrorless. But how does its image quality stack up? We compare it to the Mark II and a few of its other peers.

Google Lens uses artificial intelligence and 'computer vision' to identify and provide information about businesses, landmarks and other objects using your phone's camera. And now it's available for iPhone users, too.

In the job posting, the Times' describes this role as "one of the most important and high-profile jobs in visual journalism." If you're looking for a high profile job in photojournalism, you could do a lot worse than being Photo Director at The Gray Lady.

According to a recent report out of South Korea, Samsung is increasing production of its ISOCELL image sensors in a bid towards market leadership for image sensors. To reach this goal, Samsung will have to dethrone current market leader Sony... no small task.

In this video, large format photographer Ben Horne shows off the incredible resolving power of 8x10 slide film by pixel peeping a massive 709.6-megapixel drum scan of one of his landscape shots. And you thought 100MP medium format was big...

Photographer Wendy Teal tells the heart-breaking story of a wedding she shot at a hospital on just 24-hours notice. The mother of the bride had been given one week to live, and Wendy responded to the couple's desperate social media plea for someone to capture their special day.

Syrp has announced the Magic Carpet Pro: a slider that offers filmmakers an 'infinitely extendable' range thanks to built-in track levers that let you connect lengths of track without the use of tools.

At CP+ we sat down with executives from several major manufacturers. Among them was Kenji Tanaka, of Sony, who talked to us about the a7 III as well as its plans to attract more pro shooters – without ignoring APS-C and entry-level customers.

How do you shoot macro photography on an 18x24cm large format wet plate camera? You 'connect' two large format cameras together! That's how wet plate photographer Markus Hofstaetter did it, and you can read about the whole process in this article.

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Motorsports photojournalist Jamey Price recently flew to Canada with Lamborghini for the car company's Winter Accademia 2018, where clients get to drive the latest Lamborghini supercars on snow and ice. Yes... it is exactly as awesome as it sounds.

For the Pixel 2 smartphone's Motion Photos feature, Google built on its existing Motion Stills technology by adding advanced stabilization that combines software and hardware capabilities to optimize trimming and stabilization.

"After his camera was stolen from his room in the orphanage, he switched to an iPhone for his photography, reasoning that the image quality of a big, heavy camera was less important than the freedom of a cell phone. 'Quality? Screw it, I’d sketch things with a pencil if I could draw,' he wrote in a blog post."

Chinese manufacturer Vivo has announced some AI-powered Super HDR tech to compete with Google's HDR+ system. Both systems combine multiple images to create a final shot with more dynamic range and less noise, but Super HDR claims to do so more intelligently.

The 'semantic image segmentation model' categorizes every pixel in an image and assigns it a label, such as “road”, “sky”, “person” or “dog.” And now, Google has released its latest version as open source, making it available to any developers whose apps could benefit from the tech.

Fuji's latest firmware update for the GFX 50S adds two new features: a focus stacking mode, and a 35mm format mode that takes 30.5MP photos using the center portion of the camera's medium format sensor.

The crash has raised serious questions about 'startling safety gaps' in the doors-off photo tour industry. After a brief safety video, passengers are strapped in with heavy-duty harnesses and given only a knife to cut themselves loose in case of emergency.

For the first time in five years, Adobe is raising the price of some Creative Cloud subscription packages. The good news for photographers: The $10/month CC Photography plan that includes Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, and Lightroom Classic CC will stay the same.